In the world of transgressive cinema, Marian Dora has surely cemented himself as one of the most hardcore exploitation film directors along with Ruggero Deodato (director of Cannibal Holocaust; 1980) and Srđan Spasojević (director of A Serbian Film; 2009). His arthouse films, he claims, deal with both the best and worst of human nature. Now, based on an extensive set of reviews about The Angel’s Melancholia (2009), and some of his other films, the claim that his films deal with the best of human nature is rather arguable. His films always accompany a sense of macabre, and feature no less than—nudity, masturbation, rape, sadism or paraphilias as extreme as coprophilia or urophilia. Eviscerating animals and even humans is rather common in his films, and that too in full nauseating gory detail.
Marian Dora is a pseudonym, based on the initials of his real name. He was born on 1970, and is known to be a resident of South Germany1. All the interviews featuring the director have his face censored as he wants to remain anonymous. Some say he’s a physician/surgeon, but he never verified it. If he is however, that may or may explain why his depiction of an autopsy, colonoscopy, evisceration is so accurate. His films are the very definition of “hell on earth”, and perhaps are best described as “cinema of the caveman”.
Dora is an acquaintance of Ulli Lommel (director of Boogeyman; 1980), and has worked with him as a second-unit director for few of his films. Before that, he made several short-films (of no value) involving graveyards and slaugtherhouses. Nonetheless, he’s quite a hardworker as he deals with many aspects of his films, starting on from being a sound/lighting engineer to cinematographer and director.
It should be immediately clarified that Marian Dora has no relation to the other Dora, although both have a knack for exploration.
The audience of his films are polarised into two categories—cult followers and loathers. Two of his most famous and controversial films are Cannibal (2006) and The Angel’s Melancholia (2009). The latter of which brought him fame, or perhaps infamy as a director of one of the most disturbing films in existence.
His other films include—Debris Documentary (2003), Trip to Agatis (2010), Carcinoma (2014), The Blight of Humanity (2018) & Yearning of Maria D. (2018), Thomas and Marco (2022).
Cannibal (2006) was based on the real case of Armin Meiwes, the Rohtenburg cannibal who in 2001, invited a man on the internet over to his house to eat. It was an assignment of Ulli Lommel to Marian Dora to make this film, but when Dora showed it to Lommel, the gore horrified Lommel, so he scrapped Dora’s work, and made his own film Diary of Cannibal (2007), which unfortunately became one the worst films ever made.
It’s all done very abstract, using minimalist dialogue, buffering scenes with every Bible quote Lommel could find about eating or sacrifice, over directed with a masturbatory amount of fancy edits, fades, black & white footage, fake scratches to the digital image to make it look like an old 8mm reel, and montages out the wazoos.
— The Dread Central on Diary of a Cannibal (2007).
Dora’s film was particularly famous, or rather say “infamous” for depicting evisceration of Bernd Brandes (victim of Armin Meiwes) in its full gory detail. Despite of the film accurately depicting gore, Meiwes had himself recorded a four-hour long video of the actual incident, where he dismembered and eviscerated Brandes, then hung his body from a meat-hook. That video had never been made public by the German police for good reasons; for if it was public, our beloved Carsten Frank would surely masturbate to that, and his associate Dora include that in his films.
Now, if I have to draw a comparison though, Carsten Frank would be the more extreme (and real life) version of Shinji Ikari, who in a hospital, masturbates to a fourteen-year old topless girl in coma.
Angel’s Melancholia (2009) was Dora’s first original feature. It features an ensemble cast of three male leads—Katze (Carsten Frank), Brauth and Heinrich, and four female leads—Anja, Bianca, Melanie and Clarissa; all embark on a sadistic orgy in a haunted house, where they turn insane and hurl violence upon each other.
The story of it is simply that, two friends—Katze and Brauth—had long ago tortured a pregnant woman, and the house become haunted ever since. The friends reunite. Katje confesses his paranoia for his soon-to-come death to Brauth. Then, they enter a fair, where they meet two young girls—Melanie and Bianca. At the bathroom of a bar Katze meets Anja, who was urinating at the moment, and the group then drive away to the haunted house. On the way Katze becomes hysteric; gets out of the car, and starts rolling on the street for an unknown reason. During their stay at the haunted house, they meet an artist named Heinrich, who claims himself to be dead. He accompanied a woman named Clarissa, who was tied to a wheelchair with a colostomy device. Things start to escalate from that point onward, and soon they swirl into an irredeemable sadistic absymality. Many animals are cruelly murdered for real—a dead rabbit is beheaded, then disembowelled; a living cat’s throat is slit; a pig is slaughtered. Some of the women are brutally raped and tortured; particularly, a girl’s vagina stabbed with a knife. The men inflict self-harm on themselves, especially Katje. A girl masturbates to a VHS tape (like Carsten Frank), where a newborn being beheaded is seen. A nun strips and masturbates in a church. The group murders Heinrich, and burns him on a pyre, while simultaneously ejaculating into the fire. Finally, Katje dies, while Anja mourns his death, and then leaves with a nun. At the end, it is announced that Katje is an Angel (in Ulli Lommel’s voiceover).
This is no doubt Dora’s most discussed film, and his most passionate project; it frequently appears in internet lists of “most disturbing movies ever made” across the internet, often being billed as either “beauty within madness” or “a depraved, perverse and nihilistic endurance test.”
Backstory: Filming it was not only mentally stressing, but also physically. Dora himself lost more than 16kg during film production, and had slept for barely half-an-hour during the shooting. He admitted that only ten-percent of what he had in mind materialised the film. His lead actor-cum-producer Carsten Frank had disagreements over inclusion of the some more extreme scenes, involving a mutilation of a real dead corpse in a morgue. It was illegal, but Dora told it was supposed to serve as a central plot to the story.
This means he not only violated animal rights, but also human rights. Although, he’d not be first to do that. Tun-Fei Mou, almost 20 years ago made his infamous film Men Behind The Sun (1988), where he used real human cadaver of a dead child. Dora admitted of manipulating people on the set to shoot his film, inspired by Andreas Baader (German Charles Manson). He received a lot of death threats following the premiere of his film, and for obvious reasons.
He recounts in Revisiting Melancholie der Engel (2017), that film was based on a true incident, where a group similarly went into an abandoned house and the members went missing thereafter. Similar to the film, there were carcasses of children around the house.
The cinematography is said to be poetic at times, but the film itself can’t redeemed from any artistic angle, not even by David Hess’s song Lullaby.
Marian Dora uses elusive speech in his interviews to inflate words with a mere sense of profoundness; to a cult follower they may sound as if words from the holy doctrines of underground filmmaking, but to any person with common sense, they are nothing but ramblings of the severely delusional. Either he is incoherent on purpose to serve his charlatanism, not speaking anything on point, or he is actually demented to the point of not being able to articulate his mind properly; Santacharya believes that it’s actually both.
Bodily fluids are a central theme in your world of cinema. Where does the fascination with excrement come from?
Imagine the situation: You make a film without any time, without any money, and without any possibilities. Underground filmmaking simply. The only thing you can use is the body of the actor, of course. This is why I routinely show bodily functions. What you see is nothing special, it is everyday occurrences. Here I pay attention to keep the right measure. For example, I show in every film more often a person eating, than a person emptying the body. Oddly enough people speak me about the body emptying scenes, but not about the eating scenes. There is obviously an imbalance in the perception of some people. I can only speculate about the reason.
Except he doesn’t limit his films to just “body emptying”, he extends the scope of “body emptying” to being a source of sexual pleasure—urophilia or coprophilia. Dora could’ve tried better to find a more suitable excuse, but again, can you expect any better from an exploitation director with no knowledge of art?
A lot of your viewers, even your devoted followers seem to detest your use of animal violence in some of your films, in particular Melancholie. Why do you feel the need to portray animals suffering, tortured and killed in your work? Do you feel it’s a strong metaphor for human suffering and easier to get across with such raw emotion from an actual dying life form?
It is a part of the specific philosophy of my films to avoid the faking of scenes like torturing animals or human beings. But there are some reasons going beyond that philosophy. Usually there are three reasons to use scenes like that you mentioned in your question. The first reason is that such scenes help to clarify the characterisation of the protagonists. Personally, I don’t think this is a good justification for the use of reality. The second, more important reason is to create the appropriate atmosphere. The closer you come to reality, the more intense the pictures will be. The third reason is the most important reason — scenes like that are a declaration that the film you are watching is not made for entertainment. You can select the audience — everyone just watching a film to have fun will be rejected.
So, according to Dora, if you want to declare that your film is not for mere enjoyment, you have to torture animals and humans for real—what a logic! Makes perfect sense, doesn’t it? Deodato at least regretted shooting a pig during the cast of Cannibal Holocaust, while our beloved Dora is devoid any of that, and even defends his work. Let’s assume for a moment, that animal rights don’t matter.
Was the cutting of Anjas’s breast in Melancholie der Engel real?
Yes.
Then, what’s the excuse for abusing human rights like this? Because a human is also an animal? Because it’s on par his philosophy? Because had no money for special effects or makeup? It could be either that he’s lying in hopes of generating controversy, or he’s an actual psychopath.
In Melancholie Der Engel a young wheelchair bound girl is constantly mistreated and brutalized. What point were you trying to get across with this?
The girl in the wheelchair was a victim and she was consequently treated as a victim. For the film it is not very important what happens to this girl. Only the feeling and thinking of the main protagonists is important. Sometimes it’s a little bit sad that people only look at such marginal — and very short in relation to the running time — scenes. Angel’s Melancholia is about much more — about friendship and the destiny of the two leading males. If I only would have in mind to shock the people, I could do much better, believe me.
Then, why was she included? To be a defenceless object for Brauth to vent his anger? If she had no point in being there, why include her at all in an ensemble cast? According to Dora’s film, apparently men can rape women at will, and they won’t be affected afterwards—neither physically nor emotionally.
… You stated that Debris Documentary is in some ways autobiographical. Do you resonate with the sexual depravity and copious amounts of bodily fluids presented forth by Carsten Frank? Could you elaborate?
Indeed Debris Documentary shows the real person Carsten Frank. There is a lot of intersection between him and me, this is why it is justified to call the film autobiographical. In a way the film addresses the eternal question of underground filmmaking: how far would I go? Is it justified to bring the sacrifice of a human life for my film?
…
Context: In the film our beloved Carsten Frank indulges in no less than rape, bestiality, anal fisting, coprophilia, urophilia and necrophilia. He as always masturbates to his collection of snuff films, and reads stories of RAF (Red Army Faction).
… How are your relationships with colleagues? Have any colleagues seen your films and taken umbrage to the extreme nihilism and graphic cruelty depicted within them?
…
Other underground filmmakers know my work, of course. But I am often criticized of being too superficial and too mainstream. Without wanting to be arrogant, I want to assert that in contrast to some colleagues who only supply the market of the Peter Madsens of this world I am someone who love films.
Ah, I wasn’t aware that for the love of films, a director to physically and mentally torture his actors! But I guess, that’s the norm of the world Dora belongs to—underground cinema.
… Unfortunately, people keep assuming I want to break taboos. Especially this day and age is full of many ridiculous taboos, and I feel it beneath my dignity to deal with them. I never did. All I show in my films everybody saw a thousand times in other film or in reality. However, I am interested in showing things that SHOULD be taboo, but aren’t.
I would like to give an example: maybe it would be a good idea to taboo land consumption. Nobody cares at the moment that nature and in the end every living being find dwindling habitats. Another example: four or five hours after food intake I am hungry again. If I would eat a fried chicken, a living being would lose his existence only for a few hours of my feeling of satiety. This is no justifiable proportion. Why not make eating animals a strict taboo in the future? Or take the fact that from the beginning of social life there is an exercise of power between humans. Maybe it would be a resolution for the future of society to taboo that from early childhood? …
This without a doubt had been the peak of Doraesque. And, he made numerous such statements in interviews, which if you attempt understanding, bring you to question that if you understand anything at all.
What arthouse cinema directors like Marian Dora don’t understand, is art itself. Cinema isn’t a gorefest to masturbate to (as does Carsten Frank in Cannibal or Debris Documentary); it’s a medium of expression—an art form. Great cinema is coherent, nuanced, and layered. And, using it to depict your fetishes is certainly “an exercise in poor taste”.
Violence is a plot device used to convey a poignant message through its metered and effective use. Relying merely on shock value of violence is what pseudo-intellectual directors do. As put articulately by Eli Hayes on Letterboxd, Dora’s films stand as a comprehensive manual of how to not make a film.
Cinema could ofcourse be transgressive, but it needs to convey; convey a thought across through its scenes. Eraserhead (1977) by David Lynch is surreal and grotesque, yet meaningful in that it embodies the fear of fatherhood. A Clockwork Orange (1971) by Stanley Kubrick is an ultraviolent film that was controversial for its time, yet meaningful in portraying a cynical view of society in how it deals with evil through its protagonist Alex DeLarge.
Angel’s Melancholia or any exploitation film for that matter, don’t contain any substance; they merely exist to shock or disgust. Quoting poets, philosophers or libertines in film monologues or dialogues, juxtaposing a dramatic musical score with nauseating gore, fails to turn Angel’s Melancholia into a profound commentary on the best and worst of human nature.
If you, the reader, is more curious about this abomination of a director, you can follow the links below; none of them are sponsored.
Magnus Blomdahl’s documentary Revisiting Melancholie der Engel (2017) briefly mentions the title card “South Germany.” ↩