Half a century has passed since Rainer Werner Fassbinder completed Fox and His Friends, yet the interval feels less like distance than a kind of temporal collapse. The film arrives in our present moment with the unsettling freshness of a prophecy fulfilled.
Rainer Werner Fassbinder, left, with Peter Chatel in “Fox and His Friends,” Fassbinder’s 1975 film about a working-class gay man exploited by his upper-class lover.Credit The Criterion Collection.You can simply scroll past—but please don't overlook the importance of an independent queer press.
Time is now or never.
Queer voices disappear without independent journalism to amplify them.
We document what others won't touch.
We hold power to account when it threatens our communities.
This work exists only because you choose to fund it directly.
Donate over €25/month and receive our limited-edition tote bag — a badge of resistance, a statement that you stand for fearless journalism.
We are grateful!
Can't donate? Sharing our work helps more than you think
You can simply scroll past — but please don’t overlook the importance of an independent queer press.
You can simply scroll past—but please don't overlook the importance of an independent queer press.
Time is now or never.
Queer voices disappear without independent journalism to amplify them.
We document what others won't touch.
We hold power to account when it threatens our communities.
This work exists only because you choose to fund it directly.
Donate over €25/month and receive our limited-edition tote bag — a badge of resistance, a statement that you stand for fearless journalism.
We are grateful!
Can't donate? Sharing our work helps more than you think
There exists in Rainer Werner Fassbinder’s cinema a peculiar species of cruelty, one that operates not through grand gestures but through the accumulated weight of small indignities, each meticulously catalogued like specimens in a laboratory of human degradation. In *Fox and His Friends* (1975), the director’s twenty-second feature made when he was merely twenty-nine, this forensic examination of social violence achieves a kind of terrible perfection. Here, in the crepuscular world of Munich’s gay demimonde, love reveals itself as simply another form of commerce, and class operates with all the inexorable logic of a natural law.
The narrative architecture appears deceptively simple. Franz Bieberkopf—who performs as “Fox, the Talking Head” in a shabby carnival—wins half a million Deutsche Marks in the lottery and promptly falls into the orbit of Eugen, an elegant creature of the bourgeoisie whose factory requires salvaging. What follows is less a love story than a sustained act of financial vampirism, conducted with the polite savagery that only the truly cultured can muster. Fassbinder casts himself in the title role, and there is something almost masochistic in watching him embody this working-class naïf, all baby-faced innocence and proletarian manners, stumbling through drawing rooms where every canapé becomes an occasion for humiliation.
The film was groundbreaking as the first of Fassbinder’s works to directly address gay culture, though to label it merely as gay cinema is to mistake the forest for a single, particularly twisted tree. At Cannes in 1975, Fassbinder himself insisted the homosexuality was incidental, that this was fundamentally a story about exploitation in love. Yet this disclaimer carries its own disingenuousness. The film’s geography is unmistakably queer—the steam baths, the leather bars, the coded glances—and within this landscape, Fassbinder maps the intersections of desire, money, and class with cartographic precision.
The camera work, which might seem quotidian on a degraded videotape, reveals itself in restoration as something altogether more calculated. Fassbinder composes his frames with an eye towards reflection and obscurity: ceiling mirrors capture betrayals, awkward angles suggest the distortions of perception that love engenders. There is a sequence in Morocco—where Fox and Eugen cruise for a third party, the camera observing a festival whilst their negotiations proceed in voice-over—that captures the essential disconnection between surface and transaction, between the carnival of public life and the cold arithmetic of private exchange.
Critics have observed that the film presents homosexuality without sensationalism, avoiding the usual tropes of guilt or deviant behaviour. This matter-of-factness proves both its strength and its controversy. When the film premiered, some quarters of the gay community denounced it as degrading, a charge that Fassbinder’s unflinching pessimism arguably invited. Critic Andrew Britton wrote in *Gay Left* that the film’s portrayal degraded the entire community. Yet what offends in Fassbinder is not homophobia but something more unsettling: a refusal to sentimentalise any aspect of human relation. His gay men are neither noble victims nor liberated revolutionaries; they are simply people, which is to say they are capable of extraordinary cruelty.
The power dynamics operate with surgical clarity. Eugen’s family—his industrialist father and socially ambitious mother—tolerate their son’s relationship with this uncouth lottery winner whilst systematically draining his capital. Fox purchases an apartment, furniture from Max’s antique shop, expensive holidays, always believing that money might buy him entry into a world of refinement. Eugen’s family ridicules Fox’s manners and lack of culture whilst willingly accepting his money to salvage their failing business. The film becomes a study in how class reproduces itself not through locked gates but through a thousand subtle mechanisms of exclusion: the wrong wine ordered, the wrong opera appreciation, shoes worn upon a lover’s bed.
Fassbinder structures the film as a series of variations on a single, agonising theme. Each scene reiterates Fox’s essential position—the one who loves versus the one who permits himself to be loved, the one who gives versus the one who takes. Some have criticised this repetitive quality, and indeed there is something almost Beckettian in watching the same power dynamic enacted across different settings. Yet this very redundancy serves Fassbinder’s purposes. We are watching not a plot unfold but a theorem proven, again and again, until its truth becomes inescapable.
What elevates the film beyond mere social tract is Fassbinder’s ability to locate, even within this landscape of exploitation, moments of genuine vulnerability. His own performance as Fox carries a wounded quality that resists caricature. Casting himself in the role was a stroke of genius, creating the impression that there’s no one behind the camera to empathise with the character, making that lack of empathy infectious. Fox believes in love with the same naive faith he brings to the lottery—as a force that might transform his circumstances through sheer miraculous intervention. The film’s tragedy lies not in his victimhood but in his complicity, his willingness to mistake transaction for affection.
The ending arrives with the inevitability of a falling guillotine. Fox, his fortune depleted, his lover departed, his panic attacks medicated with sedatives, meets his fate in a subway station. Two young men—working class, like Fox once was—rifle through his pockets as he lies overdosed. The final image carries all of Fassbinder’s brutal clarity about the circularity of exploitation, how the exploited become exploiters when opportunity permits, how innocence is not virtue but merely inexperience.
At Cannes, Fassbinder claimed this was a love story where one person exploits another’s love, the story he always told. And indeed, across his compressed, ferociously productive career—forty-four films in sixteen years before his death at thirty-seven—this theme recurs like an obsession. What *Fox and His Friends* demonstrates is how this exploitation operates not despite social structures but through them, how class and capitalism provide the very grammar through which exploitation articulates itself.
The film endures not because it offers solutions or even comfort, but because it refuses the easy consolations that cinema typically provides. There is no transcendence here, no redemptive arc, no suggestion that love might triumph over circumstance. Instead, Fassbinder offers something more valuable: an unflinching examination of how we use one another, how desire and economics intertwine, how the carnival of social life conceals transactions of extraordinary brutality. It is joyless, as one critic noted, relentless in its downbeat message. It is also undeniably true.
In an era when representation has become the paramount concern of cultural criticism, *Fox and His Friends* presents uncomfortable questions. Is it better to depict a community with all its internal hierarchies and cruelties, or to offer idealised portraits that might serve political purposes? Fassbinder, never one for political correctness, chose truth over flattery, documentation over aspiration. That this truth proved bitter to many is perhaps less a failure of the film than a testament to its accuracy. For in showing us Fox’s destruction, Fassbinder holds up a mirror not merely to gay culture but to the culture entire—a culture where every relation bears the taint of transaction, where love itself has been conscripted into the service of capital.
The carnival has closed. The talking head has fallen silent. And we, the audience, are left to reckon with what we have witnessed: not mere melodrama, but a documentary of the soul under capitalism’s regime.
Subscribe to our newsletter here.
Join 12,000+ readers who receive it every Wednesday, with exclusive content.For just €5,99
✦✦✦
If you have a tip and wish to contact us securely, you can write to [email protected], our encrypted email address. We take the protection of our sources seriously and guarantee strict confidentiality.
✦✦✦
When we learn of a mistake, we acknowledge it with a correction. If you spot an error, please let us know.
✦✦✦
You can listen to our podcast Queer News & Journalism on your favourite platform or go to our YouTube Channel @GAY45mag.
✦✦✦
Let us know what you think at [email protected].
✦✦✦
Submit a letter to the editor at [email protected].
✦✦✦
We appreciate it. Thanks for reading.
