February and March of 1943

I thought one of the most interesting portions of the chronology in Rentschler's appendix occurs in 1943. The points of interest for me begin with “Surrender of the Sixth Army under General von Paulus at Stalingrad.” This occurs at the beginning of February. Clearly, when this information reaches the public, they will feel disheartened and probably panic. This is why the speech by Goebbels on February 18th is not surprising. He “calls for total war.” Obviously he is trying to bolster the hope of the people and call them to action. These events are jarring shocks of the realities of war. They exude defeat and sacrifice. That is why the film released two weeks later, Münchhausen, is so interesting to me. This film does not focus on defeat or sacrifice at all; in fact, it does the opposite. Its themes centralize around self-indulgence and personal gratification. The film is contrary to the adamant demands made by Goebbels and, in fact, by the situation around them. Furthermore, a report just one day after the release of the film confirms that “newsreels have been unable to regain their former popularity” This seems to show that people are not interested in the war. They are not interested in being called to total war. They want to engage in escapism and be relieved from the constant reminders of the war that encompasses their lives. This is why Münchhausen gained popularity while newsreels declined.

March 1, 1942

March 1, 1942, Goebbels wrote in his diary, “Even entertainment can be politically of special value, because the moment a person is conscious of propaganda, propaganda becomes ineffective.” [Rentschler, 259]

 

I found the timing of this entry interesting, as it is clear at this point that Goebbels knew the power of propaganda but also how necessary it was going to be in the near future.  In December of 1941, the German troops got frozen in outside of Moscow, a terrible blow for the army of the Third Reich.  Furthermore, after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in the same month, Germany was also facing the prospect of fighting a fresh army from the most powerful industrial nation in the World.  These external blows aside, Goebbels was also going to have to control information from within the Reich.  On January 20, 1942, at the Wannsee Conference, the “final solution” of the Jewish people was decided, followed shortly thereafter by the beginning of deportation of the Jews to the death camps.  While many Germans were anti-Semitic, the extreme nature of the “final solution” was going to have to be artfully concealed.  Luckily for Goebbels, German audiences attended the movies 14 times a year on average, and all film distribution was under a central authority.  His entertainment was most certainly going to have to be goods and of special value, because of all times it is at this moment when Goebbels needed effective propaganda.

die Weiße Rose

'22 February [1943] Hans and Sophie Scholl, prominent members of the 'White Rose' resistance group are executed.' [Rentschler 263]

I didn't know what the White rose even was, so it naturally caught my attention. The White Rose was composed mostly of students, and a few professors at the University of Munich who wrote and printed leaflets that were decidedly anti nazi.

The leaflets dealt with deportation and murder of Jews and were opposed to the blind nationalism and militarism in Germany. The students called for justice, and the leaflets were widely distributed in many major German cities.

Hans and Sophie Scholl were arrested by the Gestapo on the 18th after distributing leaflets at the university. They were extensively interrogated, but reportedly remained firm. On the 22nd they were tried by the Volksgerichtshof, and beheaded later that day, on account of treason.

 I am impressed with the courage [or perhaps idealistic naivete] of these students. Although it may appear that their efforts may have been rather futile, the fast and harsh action against them by the Gestapo suggest that they were being effective, insofar as they were noticed and considered threatening.

Investments in Propaganda

The initial creation of the Ministry for Popular Enlightenment and Propaganda in March of 1933 was declared by Hitler as responsible “for all tasks related to the spiritual guidance of the nation, to the promotion of the state, culture, and the economy, to the promulgation of information to domestic and foreign sources about the nation as well as the administration of all the agencies responsible for these endeavors” (228). The investments that the Third Reich made in radio, press, film, and theater throughout the duration of the war reveal the importance of the role that all types propaganda played in the promotion of Nazi ideology. In the film industry alone the Third Reich released over 1,000 feature films from 1933 to 1945 (225). Although many of these films were successful in propagating Nazi ideology to the masses, I find it particularly interesting that as the Third Reich began to fall to the Allies in 1945, Goebbels stoically declared: “The great hour has arrived for German propaganda” (269). Ironically, Goebbels was most likely well aware of the Reich’s fast approaching collapse, and we now know that German propaganda alone, 'emotionally engineered' intellectually based, would not be enough to sustain the future of Nazi Germany.

Holding out till the bitter end

On February 8, 1940, Goebbles said, "I keep impressing my people with one basic truth: repeat everything until the last, most stupid person has understood." While somewhat harsh, Goebbles statement truly emphasizes the mentally of the Reich with regards to their media propaganda. Throughout this class we have witnessed a variety of continuous themes in the movies including the idea of the Heimat, the parasitic nature of the Jews, the importance of hygiene and strength for the Nazi party, and the necessary recruitment of the German youth, among other things. He and members of the propaganda crew reached the masses through melodramas, comedies, and "documentaries", finding a way to reiterate the Nazi party ideology across the movie theater screens. At first I was unsure how to react to this quote since it seemed confrontational and even insulting, but as unfortunate this may be, it does ring true to what we have witnessed from their films.

I also found it interesting when Goebbles said, "Gentleman, in a hundred years' time, they will be showing another fine color film describing the terrible days we are undergoing now. Don't you want to play a part in this film, to be brought back to life in a hundred years' time?" He finishes by saying, "Hold out now, so that a hundred years from now the audience does not hoot and whistle when you appear on the screen." I found this quote somewhat eerie in nature and am still unsure as to how to react to it. Throughout this class, no matter how much I do not like Goebbles, I cannot deny the fact that his evil and disgusting creativity worked to grab hold of the German masses and led them to blindly accept and follow the Party's ideology. Since he made this comment on April 17, 1945, it was as if we was willing, and sort of pleading, with his people to hang on for just a bit longer, even thought it was evident they were going to lose the war. I wonder if in this moment Goebbles thought that after the war he would be able to continue heading up propaganda and making movies. It is as if for this one split second he believed that if everyone could stay together and fight for what they believed in, then they could keep things going, even if the war ended. Goebbles is the propaganda industry's hero and in his last "battle speech" he continues to will his people to fight until the end.

"... because the moment a person is conscious of propaganda, propaganda becomes ineffective. However, when propaganda as a tendency, as a characteristic, as an attitude remains in the background and becomes apparent through human beings, then propaganda becomes effective in every respect" page 259. This quote taken from Greobbels was imperative to the mindset of the Nazi party. In order to successfully saturate the mindset of the Germans, the Nazis had to keep their true intentions in the background. The most powerful effect of the propaganda was the inability to notice its existence at all. I think it was imperative that Greobbels was able to identify the fact that once a person becomes conscious that they are watching propaganda...it no longer works to engrain ideas in peoples minds because they are not as open. As 'devil's advocate as it may be to give credit to the Nazi's- the fact of the matter is that they did an excellent job at disguising their attitudes behind bigger ideas and bigger pictures. You saw a monster as dirty and dark and in your mind dirty and dark was associated with fear and hatred. This idea transferred to the prejudices faced by Jews because the Germans were so infiltrated with anti-Semitism in film that they were unable to disengage these feelings in their real lives.

Allied forces and their understanding of propaganda

I found many of the events mentioned in Rentschler's appendix to be worthy of discussion or further research, but one that stood out to me as particularly relevant to this class was the criteria at the very end for the censorship of German films by Allied forces (September 28, 1945). Aside from the issue of the merits censorship itself, which could easily be brought in, what comes to mind is: exactly which films were these 700 that were banned by the Allies? And what implications does this have? If I had to guess, I would surmise that blatantly offensive films such as Jud Suss would be on the list, but what about the films in which the propaganda is more subtle? Because, by definition of what Goebbels and his entire branch set out to do with films under the Third Reich, wouldn't all films produced in that era qualify as violating the new rules for postwar censorship, since they were supposed to be infused in some way or other with Nazi sentiment? Or if not, did that mean that Goebbels & co. failed to produce the kinds of films they were aiming to produce? What probably happened was neither of the above, but instead the Allied rules simply had a different understanding of what was offensive/harmful/propaganda. They probably only screened out those films which were overtly offensive-- but in the end, we seem to have learned, the overtly offensive films usually are the most ineffective and easily rejected. Which means that they left all the truly dangerous ones loose to do the kinds of damage Goebbels intended.

Basically, it would be interesting to know which films the Allied forces censored, and where they fit on the "successful/unsuccessful" and "overtly/covertly propaganda" spectrums -- to see how much overlap there is between the various categories.

Shareholders of the Third Reich

15 February: Goebbels speaks to the film industry: "Now that film has come into the possession of the Reich, we have essentially experienced the following change: whereas film used to be governed by majority shareholders, it now is governed by the national leadership."

This passage on p. 255 of Rentschler's book typified the position of the Third Reich in response to many of its actions in the early 1940s; we do it for the good of the nation, therefore it is a justifiably good thing. Yet there really is no distinction between the former "majority shareholders" that ran the film industry and the film industry under the rule of Hitler and Goebbels. Just as they did with the German government, the Nazi party organized a hostile takeover of the film industry insuring that they were the ones in charge. More importantly, this was done without a democratic means as chosen by the people. Hitler, Goebbels, and the rest of the Ministry of Propaganda were as much shareholders as their predecessors in the film industry. Their chief profit goal may not have been financial, but they invested a lot of time, money, and resources into the film industry in order to win the support of the German people. Therefore, it's clear that there is very little difference between the former "majority shareholders" and the then-current "national leadership."

Striving for Mediocrity?

One thing that struck me from the appendix was Goebbels’ quote on page 251, where he says that “we have only good films and bad films. We lack the serviceable middle range.” The first thing that is interesting about this quote is that Goebbels seems to want mediocre films. Instead of striving for only good films, he wants films that are good, bad and in the middle. I don’t know if he is referring to the quality of the film or the quality of the propaganda but either way, it seems odd that a high ranking Nazi officer would strive for mediocrity instead of demanding the best. The second thing that strikes me is that maybe Goebbels’ mind works on a binary scale that can only register movies as good or bad. Since he views the films in terms of their quality of propaganda and the message that they send to the audience, he might make one conclusive decision on a film instead of wavering. This seems to me to be similar to the binaries that were prevalent in Nazi thinking, like good vs. bad, clean vs. dirty, German vs. the other. 

Flight to the Moon

In his address on the 4th-5th of March in 1938 at the annual meeting of the RFK in Berlin, Goebbels called for "productions with greater verisimilitude (Lebensnähe)" and that film "should hold up a mirror to the world and everyday life.

So the question we have for you, Herr Goebbels, is this - Where or how does such a film as Münchhausen, in all its absurdity and even surreptitious argument against your cause, fall into this category of proper films? Does this still somehow fall under your propaganda plans? Fortunately, as you yourself stated, propaganda must be a subtle thing, lest it immediately lose its effectiveness, and this film is certainly subtle in varying nuances.

But surely not that subtle.

Herr Goebbels, it seems you have fallen prey to propaganda yourself. The fact that Münchhausen was clearly allowed under your permission to be produced and shown to the audiences of Germany shows nothing but your blindness to the film's propaganda, surfacing time and time again throughout the piece, just under your very nose. Or perhaps we could say that with the hard times, Herr Goebbels, the faltering hope of the Nazi party led to your own faltering strictness and formerly stern regulations on what moves the powerful propaganda pawn of the film industry could execute in the game against Germany's enemies. It seems that being cornered ever more tightly, Münchhausen was a final sign of surrender when there were no other moves left.

Appendix 1940-1945

I found this reading to be very interesting, because the chronology was so random. For example it says on March 29, 1940 that "Goebbels stresses the important political role of comedies and musicals" (252). Following this it says on April 27, 1940 "Heinrich Himmler orders that a concentration camp be established at Auschwitz" (251). I found this to be very odd how the listing of a need for musicals was right by the listing of an opening of a concentration camp. These two topics are complete opposites of each other, therefore with them listed on the same page it is odd because the level of importance between the two is not equal at all. I also found it to be kind of funny that Goebbels had so many comments about the propaganda films, that they almost overshadowed the war. Obviously that was his job, but he clearly took it extremely seriously to the point that it was all he was thinking about. Goebbels rally tries to tie together theatrics and the war effort as a means of success in both areas. I feel that in some areas Goebbels is in a state of dillusion. I think he has this idea that germany is going to be indistructable and with the help of all the propaganda that he is spreading people are going to side with Germany in all countries. Goebbels is constantly coming up with new ideas in hopes to spark some interest in German films. Since sometimes he even hires banned writers because he knows that they are very talented and he hopes that people will be receptive to his work. The more receptive people are, the more poeple will love Germany, and the better chance Hitler has of succeeding in ruling the world.

They're Onto You, Mr. Goebbels

Germany’s extensive use of film as propaganda during WW II was no secret to the Allies, who recognized the role cinema played in generating desired perceptions of the war and of the world at the time. I found it very interesting to read that by August 1, 1943, the Allies’ bombings had destroyed 237 cinemas within Germany. For some reason, I tend to think of either residential or industrial areas as common targets for bombings, and had never thought about buildings such as cinemas being affected by wars. Although more than 6,000 cinemas still stood at the end of the year, the loss of hundreds of cinemas must have nevertheless made it increasingly difficult to spread propaganda. On a related note, I also found it interesting that between 1933 and 1940 Germany released more than 80 feature films every year, a quantity that was never reached between 1941 and 1945. In 1945, for instance, only 12 feature films were premiered in Germany. This fact, combined with the decreased number of cinemas in Germany as a result of bombings, indicates that Germany was much more successful at generating and distributing propaganda while leading the war, and was unable to maintain the same level of production and distribution once the tables had turned.

To carry on with the topic of the Allied understanding of the threat of German propaganda, I found it very interesting to read that MGM was ordered in August of 1940 to close its German offices. This is a clear indication that the non-German film industry was starting to understand how works were being used for manipulative purposes. This brings me to the last point I wanted to touch on. On September 28, 1945, the Allies met to decide how German films were to be censored following the war, which shows very clearly that films were viewed as potentially dangerous. The result was that German films were not allowed to be shown in German cinemas that met certain criteria. I thought this was especially intriguing because I had never previously considered how a cinema can influence an audience’s political views. It is obvious how films can do such things, but it had never occurred to me that certain atmospheres can project specified political messages. This is likely due to the fact that modern American cinemas generally consist of neon lights and lots of bright colors advertising whatever food and drinks are available, which all the more displays the stark contrast between what is now the “normal” cinematic experience in America and what the experience was in Germany 65 years ago.

Censorship

One thing I found interesting in the chronology in Rentschler’s book was the guidelines for postwar censorship of German films at the end of the appendix. The guidelines bring up the question of free speech, and whether it is ok to censor something, even when it is obviously bad. One of the most interesting of the ten guidelines was number 5, which states that films would be banned that “ridicule, or seem derogatory or uncomplimentary of, Allied peoples, their governments, their political or national leaders.” Like the other guidelines on the list, one can easily see why the allies would have wanted to follow this policy. As they were engaged in a complicated and extensive process of reconstruction in Germany, the last thing they would have wanted was a film stirring up resentment of allied actions among the German population. However, the stipulation banning “uncomplimentary” works is something I find particularly intriguing. Not only does this seem like a loose term that can be applied to a lot of things, but rather than just preventing films glorifying Germany or the German Army or fascist ideals, it bans films that go against the allied cause. In other words, instead of defining censorship as an effort against a National Socialist past, it becomes an effort in support of a future under an Allied system. That the allies wanted to prescribe Germany’s political future is not surprising. After all, the BRD and DDR are examples of the direct influence of the western and Soviet powers respectively. However, it is interesting that this subtle guideline seems to suggest an awareness of the necessity of film to do so.

Some thoughts on what Goebbels has to say...

After spending some time with the Appendix in Rentschler's book, I came across this interesting quote (pg 251) that Goebbels stated on February 8, 1940: "I keep impressing my people with one basic truth: repeat everything until the last, most stupid person has understood." I was struck by this quote because of how simplistic and provocative it is as it seems to sum up, quite well, what we have learned about the way Nazis used their ideological rhetoric, particularly through film. From the very earliest days of the Nazi party through the end of the war, the Nazis continually repeated the same overarching ideological ideas in speeches and through propoganda (like film). Although Goebbels and his people may not have been able to get "the last, most stupid person" to understand, they were able to get most people to understand, and that is pretty scary when one takes the time to think about it. In another quote, taken from his diary from March 1, 1942, Goebbels states that "Even entertainment can be politically of special value, because the moment a person is conscious of propaganda, propaganda becomes ineffective. However, when propaganda as a tendency, as a characteristic, as an attitude remains in the background and becomes apparent through human beings, then propaganda becomes effective in every respect" (259). This quote, then, sums up how it was they were able to get so many to buy the propaganda that was repeated, as it was always so subtle, working behind the scenes, particularly in entertainment like the movies we have watched and discussed. In ending, I would like to mention that I believe what drew me to these quotes is in that they point in the direction as to how/why Germany allowed the Nazis to take over. Although there were countless reasons for the rise of the Nazis, as we read in the Benz book, a question that is asked by many is how/why did the German people allow this (this = everything from 1933-1945) to happen? In the Divinity school, there is much talk at times about the indifferance and complacency of the Germany people, discussing those few Germans (like Bonhoeffer) who resisted the Nazis. Yet, I can not help but wonder...given the meticulous time and energy that Goebbels and the Nazis put into propaganda, making it so subtle and repeating it in so many different ways, is it really any surprise that the overwhelming majority of the German people accepted Nazi rule and power? If nothing else, this class and all that we have studied has given me a lot to think about...

Blog post for December 1-3

This week, review the chronology of films and events from 1940-1945 in Rentschler's Appendix. Find one event, film, industry event, or political happening to explore however you like. If you respond to a film, please post on the film blog; otherwise, please post on the reading blog.

Renschler is clearly enamored with the films cinematic scope and its propagandistic means. The question for me was a film's ability to be both escapist and a piece of heavy propaganda. A propagandistic film intuitively connotes an engagement with the material that is active--a piece escapist theater connotes a disengagement from the faculties to the point of transcendence. Many films more or less fall into one category--to bridge both requires specific subject matter. The storyline must be fantastical nature to fulfill the demands of both propaganda and escapist art. The disengagement of the faculties as the audience settles into an alternate reality engenders a total receptivity. Because the film is a suspension of reality and natural law from the onset, the authorial power increases exponentially. The film can consider even the most far fetched ideologies with little regard to any 'normal' standards of thought and action. The audience will consider them because they have been conditioned to do so, and after all, its only "a movie".

Münchhausen Post

In doing the readings for this week, I was struck by how differently Schulte-Sasse and Rentschler interpreted this film. To make a very broad generalization, Schulte-Sasse reads Münchhausen as a subversive, anti-Nazi movie and reads the main character as Jewish, while Rentschler reads Münchhausen as a clever scheme of Goebbel's "to control all sectors of experience includ[ing] alternative perspectives" (Rentschler 203) and the liar baron as a strong representation of the Fascist ideal- a man unaffected by the passage of time who is master of his own destiny and "those forces that... might hinder his unencumbered movement" (Rentschler 207). To have come to such radically different conclusions, one might think that the authors had read each scene completely differently, but surprisingly, they didn't. They both look at the winking picture and the baron's ride on the cannonball as indications of self-reference, and both interpret this gesture as showing the illusion that is film-making. Schulte-Sasse even references some of Rentschler's own conclusions, but then recognizes that hers are generally much different.

I have a feeling that if I tried to figure out at exactly which point in their logic the two authors began to disagree, I'd be writing an essay, not a blog, so I'm only going to talk about one particular scene in which they took different opinions.

At the end of the film, the butler turns off the electric light, signaling the end of the film. But the painting of the baron comes to life once more to blow out the candles, and the smoke from the candles signals the real ending of the film by spelling out "Ende." According to Schulte-Sasse, this double ending has two functions. First, it highlights our ambivalence to the ending of the film (and our recognition that it is a film!) in much the same way that Münchhausen prefers Christian's death on the moon where he fades into smoke rather than the rot of earthly death. Second, it also shows more generally Nazi cinema as an apparatus of propaganda; Münchhausen sits in his portrait and is subject to his place in time, but there is some other element which makes him not content to stay there, so he reaches out of his portrait into a new time.

Rentschler, on the other hand, sees this as a final demonstration of the ultimate Fascist power. Baron Münchhausen has such control over his destiny that he even "stages his final act and thus determines how he will enter history" (Rentschler 210). This reminds me of how Hitler asked for drawings of his grandiose buildings hundreds of years in the future, as they lay in ruins. Rentschler also suggests that this ending in smoke, when viewed with the death of Kuchenreutter, represents the Nazis desire to make mortality more poetic and intimate. This was especially important to the Nazi propaganda machine after the disaster of Stalingrad.

Moon Fantasy

One scene discussed in Rentschler’s article about Munchhausen that struck me the most was the moon scene. Rentschler discussed the significance of the fantasy planet where women’s heads could be separated from their bodies so that the men would not have to worry about promiscuity and the women would be able to stay home and do housework. This reading did not even cross my mind as I was viewing the film but it is interesting to discuss in terms of the Nazi fantasy of male domination. While I can definitely see this reading, I wonder what the role of the moon in the film says about this fantasy.

The flight to the moon is obviously not a realistic venture, as one could not fly in a hot-air balloon and end up landing right on the moon. In fact, the moon setting is so unrealistic and mocking that it cannot be considered to be a plausible reality. Additionally, man cannot survive on the moon for very long (except for Munchhausen) because each day is a year. These facts seem to suggest that the idea of the ideal woman (whose head can be separated from her body) who can be controlled and monitored is not only implausible but also undesirable. While that one aspect of the moon can be read as being in line with Nazi fantasy, because it is combined with quick aging, a lack of appropriate nourishment and a short life span, it becomes undesirable and may not be able to be viewed as an attractive fantasy. Perhaps this means that the ideal is unattainable or it could even be mocking it but it does not seem to me that the film portrays it in a positive light.

"I Thought I'd Be Welcomed with Turkish Coffee"

Either take issue with Rentschler's reading of some scene in Münchhausen (1943), or discuss the operation of the film's narrative framing device.

I greatly appreciated Rentschler's approach to Münchhausen as it helped explain in many ways how the Nazis, and particularly Goebbels, were capable of using this film to their advantage, paying no expense in the process. However, I am curious about one thing in particular that I would like to raise here in the form of a question...why did Rentschler not focus on the fact that many parts of this film are out right hilarious? I ask this realizing that it could be that I am reading my own viewing of this film into it way to much, and maybe the film was not meant to be funny when it was released in 1943. However, I do not see how one could not possibly laugh at what Münchhausen says to the Turks after his cannonball flight is over. To me, this scene and what he says is absolutely hysterical. Vehemently, Münchhausen apologizes for his intrusion, explains he had meant a reconnaissance but his gunner aimed at their priceless fortress. Then, he yells a traditional Arab greeting (Asalaam 'Alaykum...peace be upon you) and proceeds to say that he will come down, introduces himself, and once he is tied up, says that he thought he would be welcomed with Turkish coffee. This is only one example, and it certainly plays into the fantastic nature of the film, and so I just wonder if the fantasy was supposed to act in a comedic way at all since it was so outrageous at times. It seems that humor, along with fantasy, would have been increasingly important as a means of distraction in Germany at that time, given, as Rentschler points out, the country had just suffered a major defeat at Stalingrad and was under constant air raids by the Allies.

Catherine the Great

One of the most interesting and dynamic characters in Münchhausen is Catherine the Great, the sole leader of Russia. Aside from conducting negotiations with the leaders of different nations, Catherine is also an outwardly sexual woman. Rentschler describes Catherine as a woman who “controls men with her erotic charms and determines their comings and goings-without ever being upstaged or chastened”(200). She cleverly plans for Münchhausen to come to her dinner party without his knowledge and leaves him to sink down to his room when she has business to conduct. There is, however, a missing piece to Rentschler’s description of Catherine. Although it is apparent that Catherine has more power than any other female Nazi film star, she is, in the end, left in the lurch by Münchhausen. After helping to rescue him for the Turks, Münchhausen does not return to her side, choosing instead to move on to the Italian princess Isabelle d’Este. While Rentschler argues that Catherine is never “upstaged” by any of the other characters, it seems that she never fully receives the recognition she deserves for rescuing Münchhausen by handing over the wine requested by the Turkish leader.

The Narrative Framework of Munchausen

I think that the narrative framing device of Munchausen mirrors the situation in Germany of the time. Munchausen is depicted as a wise – at least wiser than he originally was – storyteller. He has had experiences, both good and bad, that he reflects on. Similarly, Germany has experienced victories and failures, triumphs and defeats. Munchausen looks back on these experiences, highlighting the fact that he has not been afraid. The way that the narrative works turns the focus of the story on Munchausen's courage to face the unknown and adapt to his new circumstances. This feeling is similar to the one that the film attempts to draw out of the Germans; for good or bad, the Germans were willing to risk it all. In the end, Munchausen knows that it's over. He bows out of his adventures with grace, for love of his wife. This is a precursor for Germany's necessary bow out of their war arena. They, like Munchausen, will do so woefully, but will do so for their love of Germany.

Münchhausen

Either take issue with Rentschler's reading of some scene in Münchhausen (1943), or discuss the operation of the film's narrative framing device.

Reaction to Silberman and Romance in a Minor Key

I very much enjoyed Silberman's analysis of Kautner's Romance in a Minor Key, yet I felt as if there was something missing from his analysis. Silberman does an excellent job explaining the roles that Michael, Victor, and the husband play, in terms of both the narration and in the critique of National Socialism. What Silberman does not explain so well is the role that Madeleine plays, which is a shame because her character is the most enigmatic. This is not to say that Silberman doesn't shed any light on her character, because he spends a significant portion of the essay discussing the importance of her smile, her longing to escape, and her recapitulation, but Silberman never says what exactly it is she represents!

Romance in a Minor Key is an adaptation of the short story "Les Bijoux," in which "a low-level bureaucrat ... marries a beautiful young woman with a weakness for the theater and for ostentatious, fake jewelry." Silberman does recognize that by focusing the cinematic perspective away from the husband Kautner transforms the message of Maupassant's story. Perhaps he should have also looked at the difference in Madeleine between the two versions. In Maupassant's story, she is beautiful and the kind of woman who loves theater and ostentatious jewelry. This is not at all the Madeleine that Kautner gives us. Perhaps this Madeleine is similar in that she is merely arm-candy to her husband, but the Madeleine of Kautner's film is austere, wears subdued costumes, and is almost masculine looking. That the men of the film think she is beautiful makes her only more enigmatic to the audience. Kautner's decision to make Madeleine more androgynous suggests that Madeleine represents all citizens. Of course, this weakens Silberman's argument concerning Madeleine and male fantasies of domination, but I think this link would have made Silberman's overall analysis stronger.

My Post

Just for Prof. Figal and Elizabeth, I posted mine on the film page.

Silberman argues rather effectively a teleological interpretive approach to Romance in a Minor Key. The base idea as I understand it that Kautner used a narrative strategy that illuminates the metaphysical sacrifice of totalitarian subordination. While I agree with Silberman to the point that that the aspect of individual loss and consequences is certainly present in the narrative, I do not necessarily believe that it is was purposed in a propagandistic way. In other words, Kauner certainly gave bits and pieces in the thematic material--commenting on the authoritative state, but only so far as to expose the tragic melodrama of authoritarian rule. Silberman gives Kautner a little more propagandistic agancy than I am instictively comfortable with. I see Silberman's points, but I might argue that the commentary doesn't necessarily condition the audience into a conclusion like Jew Suss would. As a product of its time, the film reflects certain idiomatic traits, but the film may be misappropriated as a uniquely anti-authoritarian film, rather than a film which makes a running commentary.

Silberman Article

In reading the silberman article I found many aspects to be very interesting. The way that he described the characters and the director was very insightful. He made it very obvious that Kautner was a very different director than the one's that we are accustomed to seeing within the Third Reich. He was able to kind of get away from the obvious propaganda that was portrayed in many films. Kautner focused more on the morals of his characters without comparing them to the Jewish people to make a point to the rest of the world. Take Madeline's husband for example. He is portrayed as such an oblivious man, not attentive to his wife at all, and very selfish. When looking into his character it does not go with the times, because he is not lazy or an awful German, he is just trying to make due for his family. We are supposed to look and think that it is not his fault that he is so oblivious to what is going on in his own house. Then we look at Madeline, who is actually even more confusing. Madeline is such a polar opposite of what a "good German Woman" should be that it is almost ridiculous. Madeline is a married woman, and yet she is cheating on her husband, not with just one man but two. During this time period it is not acceptable for a woman to act that way, and even in this day and age it still isn't acceptable. I think this is the point that Silberman is trying to make in regards to Kautner. It is so amazing that he was even aloud to make these kinds of films during the Third Reich rule of Germany.

Silberman Article

Torn between the Three

As I was reading the Silberman article, I was trying to make any connection I could to how it represented Germany at the time. Initially assuming that there was some hidden subplot designed to make the Third Reich look good, seeing as how the film industry was under Goebbels control when this was released, I knew I had to look for more than waving flags and massive marching demonstrations. Yet the more I looked for this, the more I realized that the positive message was not there and, if anything, a more pessimistic message lay underneath it all.

This specifically happened when I reached the section in the article analyzing the different male suitors for Madeline (around page 3 or 4). I realized that each of the three men could represent various aspects of the authority under the Third Reich, each trying to control Madeline (the German empire) using its own means of influence. Silberman describes Madeline's husband as an "authoritarian personality whose identity rests on subordination." This could describe the aspects of the Third Reich that assumed all was well among its people and that its entire image was founded on the power given to it by the subordination of the people. Silberman then describes Victor as an "arbitrary power of authority to bring catastrophe or salvation." This would be the side of the ruthless side of the Third Reich, crushing subordinates and flaunting its power. Lastly, Silberman describes Michael as outside of these two poles as the artistic, expressionistic side of authority. In the Third Reich, this would be the emphasis on culture, arts, and the media to manipulate its subjects and acquire its desired means. Each suitor used its means of influence to pull Madeline towards himself, yet in the end she could not handle it any more and died. As a result, each suitor was defeated, unable to hold the same form of influence without its goal in reach. Likewise held true for Germany and the various forms of the Third Reich. Once the country fell, there was nothing left to influence.

Intruding

I agree with Silberman that the motif of intrusion is dominant in this film and introduced really well in the opening shot. When the film opens, the shot is of "public" space. We get a long, extended shot to take us through the setting of this film. Then we are introduced to the private aspect of the film, or as Silberman puts it, a theme of 'intrusion.' I think this is a great way of describing what we are seeing. The concept of intrusion has a recurring role throughout the film and it starts with this first shot of the unknown. To me it feels like the shot is saying "Once upon a time..." by panning from a public building to following a man who we are soon introduced to as Madeleine's husband. You have this claustrophobic feeling when viewing the bedroom; we only see it from one angle (we are never looking at the windows from Madeleine and her husband's P.O.V.) and this gives us a greater sensation of invasion of space. The ultimate intrusion that characterizes Madeleine's husband is when we find out about Madeleine prior to his discovery.

Ambiguity as a key factor in Romance In Minor Key

I would agree with Silberman's claim that Romance In Minor Key is, in significant ways, not in alignment with Nazi rhetoric of the time--in its "absence of violence, heroic themes, and visual monumentality" (as opposed to, say, Triumph of the Will, which incorporated these elements in copious amounts), its lack of a neat sense of closure at the film's end, even its French source material. Despite this, Silberman asserts, the potentially subversive effects of the film are "channeled into a direction that could not threaten the regime." In total, it is, naturally, not openly subversive (it could not possibly have been and hoped to have ciruculation), but instead was a rather ambiguous film that could perhaps be read as condemning the characters' actions (especially those characters having values not aligned with the Nazi party, such as Madeleine, who obviously is not a good example of the "proper" woman in the 3rd Reich), but at the same time could be read as critiquing a society in which individuals' true desires must be suppressed. In the context of the first type of reading, the film shows that when someone behaves out of alignment with Nazi values, as Madeleine did, she drags others down with her, even people with the "correct" authoritarian value orientation, like her husband-- this reading of the film is very favorable to a Nazi audience, because it would have showed the extreme danger and selfishness of defying the status quo for so-called personal happiness. However, the film is just as easily, if not more easily, readable as showing a situation from which there is no way out: Madeleine does not find happiness in the "correct" sources, nor is it indicated that she could have; and it can be very strongly argued that her husband's downfall is a result of his authoritarian personality, not in spite of it. What, in the end, is probably most striking and significant about this film as compared with others from the 3rd Reich is that it doesn't end neatly with a clear moral message-- this ambiguity would allow it to pass censorship, but at the same time would not require the film to strongly uphold the values of Nazi propaganda at the time.

A Blind Look

One part of the Silberman article that I found interesting was his discussion of the first shot of the film. He explains that the pan from the city skyline into Madeleine’s bedroom to her motionless face signals that the film will be removed from the public space and signals intrusion into Madeleine’s most private place. This intrusion makes the characters the “passive victims of an outside, unpredictable power”(84).  I think that this is an accurate analysis of the opening shot. By first establishing the city as the public sphere, Kautner makes the viewing of Madeleine sleeping feel like an intrusion into her privacy. This mirrors the other intrusions into her private life by Victor and Michael. However, the analysis of this shot can be taken even further. 

Although the audience is given an intimate view of Madeleine’s bedroom that makes us believe that we have an intimate relationship with her, she is laying motionless. We do not know whether she is sleeping, pretending to sleep or even dead. In this sense, we are very similar to the men in the film. Madeleine’s husband is married to her and is so blinded by their simple relationship that he cannot connect with her and does not even attempt to understand her true feelings. Although Madeleine and Michael are in love and seem to have the strongest connection among the characters in the film, Michael is blinded by her smile and beauty and cannot see why she does not want to leave her husband to marry the man she loves. Victor has a large amount of power over Madeleine as her husband’s boss and with the knowledge of her affair, but is blinded by her beauty and his power and cannot see that she will never give in to his demands. In this way, the opening shot gives the appearance of an inside look into Madeleine’s life, but her silence and the audience’s blindness do not allow a peek into her soul as the window generally admits.

Silberman - The expense of knowledge

Silberman explains the husband's character in Romance in a Minor Key as a man whose "moral ideology is a form of protective nonseeing, a kind of self-preservation at the expense of knowledge" (87). Throughout the movie it is evident that Madeleine's husband is unaware of her unhappiness and is content with her silence and submission to his desires. His is content with his lifestyle and avoids any possibility to learn more about his wife and about the life around him. His routine of gambling and simply his routine nature in general illustrate his self-centered personality which does not seem to look outside the box and is quite comfortable in his complacency. Silberman points to the first scene in the movie which provides strong evidence for this, which we also discussed at length in class. I think another important scene comes from near the end of the movie, where Madeleine "thanks him" for everything. Her husband is completely oblivious to her feelings and to her unhappiness with the life he has provided, and instead of hearing the tone of her voice and the helplessness she shows in her eyes, he leaves her once again to join a card game. His character is an ideal example of an ordinary, non-heroic individual, who is comfortable with obedience and authority, and does not question the motives of others and those who are in charge.

Silberman ends the article by saying, "Romance in a Minor Key constitutes a narrative discourse on the loss of illusion, elaborating on imaginary, protected space of privacy, identified with a spectacular position of helplessness and escapist desire at a historical juncture when many Germans were beginning to expect the impending collapse of the fascist regime" (96). This historical junction is an important aspect to note - as the end of the war approaches it becomes increasingly evident to the Germans that the turnout they had hoped for and fought for was soon to be destroyed. We spoke in class about how Kautner tended to things a bit off from the what was termed the "cultural movement" of the period, but I think Kautner is right on track here, he just does it in a way that makes you think about what you are witnessing. I think this is also an important point because one thing that we have touched on is the importance of "not questioning" what has been presented. The husband embodies this idea - he decides to be content with his place in life and through his self-righteous attitude he preserves himself and his lifestyle at the expense of learning about his wife's feelings. In the end, he learns the truth about his wife and her death leaves him alone with unanswered questions. Kautner challenges the audience to ask questions and discuss what they have been presented with, which illustrates the changing attitude of Germans and those witnessing the downfall of the German Reich. I think Kautner was right on target here, even though in many ways we are unsure of the moral to the story. This ambiguous moral, however, may have been what Kautner wanted to leave us with in order to motivate and fuel discourse that had for so long been avoided by the masses.

Silberman's Explanaition

Silberman's assertions in his article regarding the basis for character interaction in Romance in a Minor Key is possibly the most significant component of the film. Kautner constantly relies on the unintentional transfer of disinformation from one character to another as a forwarding point of several aspects of the film. In many ways Silberman's explanation of the film as periods of "blindness" and "seeing" is the fundamental driver for both its plot and theme. Silberman comments on the plot as several recurrences of a formula in which a lack of understanding leads to tragedy. Madeline's husband resides in a constant state of obliviousness to his wife and her emotional distress and as a result she ends up killing herself. Michael interprets a smile and a love affair erupts which also bears partial causal responsibility for Madeline's suicide.

If we extend this idea into the thematic realm then that moral suggestion which was so elusive in class on tuesday becomes relatively apparent. Kautner, if he is making an moralistic claim at all with the film, is in many ways suggesting the necessity of guarding oneself against misinterpretation and maintaining an awareness of our surroundings. The film suggests that unproven confidence in one's schema is a trap all to easy to fall into and one which can often bear with it disastrous consequences.

Romance & Social Norms

The Silberman article makes a strong case for Kautner's use of an emotionally weak female as a symbol for the clash between individual happiness and social norms. Throughout the film Madeleine is pushed from one male to the next and each time there is something missing from the relationship. With Michael she lacks stability, with her husband she lives without love, with Victor she retains little honor, this presents her with few chances for her own happiness. Society dictates that she should either remain with her husband or leave him legally and marry Michael, yet this does not happen. The plot of the film begins with Madeleine's seemingly anti-social norms acceptance of Michael's advances. She acts against fascist teachings and talks to the well-spoken composer. Silberman rightfully notes that she acts outside the bounds of traditional fascist female roles through her stimulation of male desire and male fantasies of domination and this seems to give her some power. The social norms of female meekness appear to be broken by her actions; however, upon closer inspection she, and the film, actually reinforces fascist male dominance. Although Madeleine has the power to say "no" to Michael and Victor and to leave her husband she chooses to follow the wills of all her lovers. The film portrays her as the true fascist dream of "yes-men" citizens, devoted Nazis who will always agree with figures of authority. Kautner creates three male characters whom exert natural authority in the face of Madeleine. Michael and Victor are wealthy and her husband is knowledgeable about accounting which is corroborated by his firms trust in his ability to uncover the accounting scheme. The film teaches that a woman cannot say "no" to figures of authority and that this is her undoing. The fascist state creates citizens who act as drones carrying out the will of those above them, vocationally or romantically.

Silberman article in discussing 'The husband'

" In his anti erotic conjugal life and his subaltern position, the husband represents the authoritarian personality that so readily accepted the dictates of German fascism." I think this is the strongest point made in the Silberman article. I believe that the husband illustrated the perfect balance of obedience, yet independence to display the characteristic of the ideal German fascist. The husband's ability to live a  in a constant and simple world, a world in which much change is not needed, displays his unwillingness to challenge authority. He enjoys his life, even though we are presented with the fact that he yearns for more. We can see his desire of wanting more with the evidence of his shirt cuffs. These cheap cuffs provide the facade of a expensive tailored shirt. Although he does aspire to want more, he is more than satisfied with what he has and has no problem working where he does. Ironically however, he is an authority figure in the movie. "A strong identification with authority coupled with an equally strong rejection of the 'Other', especially of those considered socially inferior, feeds his rigorous sense of conformity and moralism." I thought that Silberman made a great point of this by citing the example of the bank clerk who condemned the man with problems with his wife at home. In his condemnation of the man he catches, he is unable to realize that in punishing the culprit, he is also placing judgement on his own wife and his own circumstances. I couldn't agree with Silberman when he said that little to no propaganda could be found in this film. Although Faukner always seemed to created movies out of their time frame, I found the husband to have a lot of the 'Nazi' ideal: a hard worker who does what he is told and is happy with that. Although he submits to authority, he is also able to be very authoritative. He admires those above him and condemns those below him. Although this film is located in a land we cannot identify and the film does not support the progression of the war, we are still faced with the characteristics of the husband-which mirror the characteristics of the Nazi ideal. The icing on the cake is the fact that the husband remains unnamed throughout the film. I couldn't help but identify with the Hitler youth quex in which the characters were unidentified also!!!!

Silence vs. Expression

In class on Tuesday we touched on the idea of silence in the film Romance in a Minor Key, so I found it interesting that Silberman addresses this theme as well, especially since he adds in the theme of expression throughout the film as well. As Silberman points out, the Madeleine is characterized by her silence throughout the film, as she is oppressed and unable to fully express herself except through her affair with Michael. As we noted, her husband is always speaking at her and to her but never with her, for he never asks her questions to which she could respond. Furthermore, he is always assigning tasks to her, yet all the while making her feel respected and loved through his adoration of her, which only serves to further her guilt and her silence. Her inevitable silence is even seen in some of her moments with Michael, particularly in the scene when she will not answer his question about coming back to visit him, and also, as Silberman points out, in the scene in the countryside when she refuses to talk about what she is feeling for fear that it will then disappear if she says it aloud. This scene is very representative of Madeleine’s insecurities concerning her own ability to express herself, and her own sense of oppression and inferiority in terms of her social status as both a woman and a member of the middle class. Silberman notes that it is her fear that speaking her dreams aloud will only further remind her of their impossibility.

On the contrary, however, there is Michael, who as Silberman points out is the embodiment of “expression” due to the fact that he is an artist, and furthermore a composer, therefore it is job to always express his emotions. In fact, it is this sheer need to express something that initially leads him to Madeleine and her enigmatic smile. His effusive and dramatic personality plays off of Madeleine’s silence, for since she is “passive,” as Silberman describes, it is easy for Michael to project all of his emotions and inferences onto her. Overall, it seems that Kautner may be making a statement in the film about the erotic desire attached to women who appear passive and unthreatening, and the dire consequences that can result from projecting an image onto someone that they did not warrant.

Romance in A Minor Key is a Major Ploy

Unfortunately for those in the audience of movie theaters during the reign of the Third Reich. There was no separation between propaganda and "unpolitical entertainment", despite arguments Silberman discusses in his article about Romance In A Minor Key. Keeping in mind the complete control National Socialists had on all media concerning Germany, regardless of the seemingly harmless film, there are many elements that regard towards typical paternalistic stereotypes in the film. It is simply a "literary adaptation, dramatic melodrama..." (81) instead of a clear film shouting ideas at its audience. Madeline's characterization as a woman who "demands accountability and an unwavering sense of propriety and virtue" (82) correlates with the Germans brainwashing of women at an early age, changing them to think that being "hyper-feminine" like the Western world did not bode well in the harsh climate of Germany. She shows the personality and values of a German woman raised in the Third Reich as she does not accept Michael's proposal due to her loyalty to her husband. An example of the film not literally throwing information at you, but characterizing a main individual in the film as a product of German civilization is a sly way of proposing ideas to viewers. Madeline's husband represents National Socialism by his upstanding position, being a hard worker, and coming home to his "obedient" but strong wife who waits on his arrival everyday. "Duty, honor, orderliness, and status are the obsessions of his authoritative personality," (85) which are specific adjectives describing the goals of achievement by the Third Reich. However, his "physical, social, and emotional prison" (83) he has kept Madeline in represents the hold the Third Reich has on their women, allowing them to believe they have freedom, and power, only to realize they are always second class citizens to their husbands. The aregument on "the right to be happy," (91) is one that has frequented discussion on the position of women within the Third Reich. Why is it that Madeline feels the need to commit suicide to escape the prison she feels is her life? This might explain why the film was the only one to receive such critical acclaim as a foreign film because it had such subliminal messages from within the lives of those living in the Third Reich. It may have not been promoting how great and wonderful Germany was, like Ufi (Nazi production company) wanted, however there definitely was a message and it was clearly seen to all those who cared to understand it.

The Existential Crisis of Madeleine and the German People

Respond to some aspect of the Silberman article. Do you agree or disagree with his point? Interpret his point, using other articles or the film to support your argument.

Silberman begins his last paragraph by stating that "Romance in a Minor Key constitutes a narrative discourse on the loss of illusion, elaborating an imaginary, protected space of privacy identified with a spectator position of helplessness and escapist desire at a historical juncture when many Germans were beginning to expect the impending collapse of the fascist regime" (96). I found this line, and the entire last paragraph, to be quite interesting and I would certainly have to agree with Silberman's thoughts here. As I watched the film Sunday night, I wondered to myself how this film could have possibly functioned as a Nazi film for, as Silberman remarks only a few lines before, most Nazi films at that point were encouraging light, uncomplicated comedies and not films that dealt with existential loss. I certainly could be mistaken, but it would seem that this film, having used mirrors to convey the existential conflict of Madeleine, is, itself, a mirror for Germany in 1942/43. Just as Madeleine is stuck in a world wishing to escape but recognizing her helpless position, so too, as Silberman alludes to, were the Germans at this time beginning to realize their own helpless position. As he writes on page 95, "By early 1943 morale at home was beginning to sink seriously owing to expanded air attacks against German cities and the growing difficulties in supplying the civilian population with necessary goods." Thus, just as it is for Madeleine that "there will be no escape from the everyday..." (89) so too was the case of the Germans when this film was made and released. What makes this all the more fascinating is that the film, functioning as a mirror, reflects this existential crisis back onto individuals. For a country whose people had been dogmatically told to think of itself as an "imagined" community functioning together as a New Germany, and in a country where mass rallies were used to isolate an individual so they would identify with a larger whole, this film forced the individual watching it to deal with the crisis on their own...something even more existentially painful. Just as Madeleine felt alone and abandoned in the world, so too the individual watching the film must have felt, stuck in the inescapable bird cage that always sits next to the window the authorities will perpetually close. The spectator, whom Silberman states would certainly feel abandoned and betrayed by the "film's desperate escape into interiority" could, in turn, transfer all blame to those who were misusing their authority while continuing to function and hold up a system that kept those authorities in power. In this sense, the individual specator would have been making an existential move that would, at the end of the day, keep them from the suicide Madeleine herself commits, although in doing so, the German people were in effect sealing their own fate...the continued suffering and eventual downfall of their country.

The Husband: a National Socialist (Gone Bad)

In his article titled The Illusion of Escapism: Helmut Käutner’s Romance in a Minor Key, Marc Silbmerman describes Madeline’s unnamed husband as a representation of an ideal National Socialist. He writes, “In his antierotic conjugal life and his subaltern position, the husband represents the authoritarian personality that so readily accepted the dictates of German fascism” (85). This notion allows for an interesting analysis of the film, especially when considering Silberman’s previous assertion that the husband’s interest in gambling (presented as a flaw in his morality) subjects him to a world of risk taking. I find it very interesting that gambling is his central flaw, especially because his participation in a game of cards ultimately provides his wife with the opportunity to commit suicide.
On the one hand, it is difficult not to see the husband as an embodiment of National Socialism. He is humble and hard-working, and is certainly willing to accept his role under the authority of others. On the other hand, his gambling addiction allows one to see him in a different light, as a person who is almost, but not quite, the perfect National Socialist. Gambling, rather than enjoying time with his wife is often his number one priority. In the film’s opening scene, as the husband returns from a night of card playing, the spectator sees a husband so oblivious to his surroundings that he holds a (one-sided) conversation before realizing his wife’s unconscious and dieing condition. This obliviousness contrasts his orderliness and makes it difficult to determine whether or not this man is truly an ideal person according to Nazi ideals. Gambling has disillusioned him to the extent that he is no longer able to recognize such a drastic problem in his household.
I find the argument that the husband is an ideal National Socialist unconvincing, because a truly self-disciplined individual would have never gone away and gambled. Furthermore, he would have never had his life so drastically changed by outside and inferior forces. At one point, he expresses his desire to gamble through statements such as, “I am itching to play,” emphasizing his inability to fight off his risky desires. I think that the husband must be seen more as a representation of what can happen when National Socialist ideals are not entirely upheld, as he is ultimately punished by losing his wife. A real National Socialist would have had the self-discipline to have seen everything coming, or rather, would have never been at risk for such misfortunes, especially at the hands of other less than ideal individuals.

Romance in a Minor Key: Escapism?

I agree with Silberman that Romance in a Minor Key is “a film that cannot be reduced to an ideological or propagandistic prescription.” However, I believe, as Shulte-Sasse says, that few, if any, films made during the Nazi regime can be pigeon-holed as purely propaganda vehicles. This film differs from the other films of the time period in that it does not attempt to fit neatly into the Nazi ideology. Silberman claims that the narrative creates a “loss of illusion, elaborating an imaginary, protected space of privacy identified with a spectator position of helplessness and escapist desire.” He goes on to show that this is relevant to the historical time and climate. I agree. The film is fraught with decisions that lead to only negative outcomes. It seems as though Madeleine has no options except to accept unhappiness. This provides the viewer with a sense of unease and even helplessness, much like the German viewers of the time would probably be feeling with the weight of the impending loss of the war on their minds. Käutner further exacerbates these worries when he does not even suggest which way Madeleine should turn. Not only does she have no options, but not even the all-mighty escapist power of film can provide one for her. It is as if film, the escapist medium, is not providing the viewer with an escape at all, but with a mirror to their own situation and subconscious emotions. Silberman seems to think that the film allows the spectator to “transfer any sense of responsibility to those who misuse their authority,” probably referencing Victor as the main source of conflict in the film. However, I do not believe the sense of responsibility is that fixed at all. The force of the film lies in the fact that there is not an easy cause, an easy solution, or an easy resolution, which mirrors the progression of the war for the viewer.

Silberman Article

“Each relationship is premised on a state of nonknowledge that always leads to an action with destructive consequences” (page 85).

This is my favorite line Silberman’s analysis of Romance in a Minor Key. I think it accurately describes the fundamental flaws that lead to the downfall of every character in a completely succinct way. The most obvious relationship based on the absence of knowledge is the relationship between Madeleine and her husband. Aside from the secret affair between Madeleine and Michael, there is a basic lack of conversation between the married couple. This indicates that neither person in the relationship understands how the other person is feeling. While it is easy to place the blame on Madeleine’s husband, she does not seem to be knowledgeable about why he constantly plays cards or is so organized. There is a lack of communication between the couple, which leads to Madeleine’s affair and the couple’s demise.

Another relationship premised on the state of nonknowledge is Madeleine and Michael. While some might argue that Madeleine is her true self with her love, he does not seem to be knowledgeable enough on why Madeleine will not leave her husband. It seems fairly obvious to me that Madeleine’s sense of duty to her husband prevented her from leaving him entirely; yet, Michael either refuses to acknowledge this or just doesn’t know Madeleine’s true feelings. It is possible that is the couple had had a discussion about Madeleine’s true feelings towards her husband they would have come to a different conclusion then just returning to her normal life.

Silberman Article on "Romance in a Minor Key"

Respond to some aspect of the Silberman article. Do you agree or disagree with his point? Interpret his point, using other articles or the film to support your argument.

The Broken Jug

From the perspective of Silberman, no film, no matter what the subject matter may be, could be wholly free from some ideological underpinnings from its source culture. He makes the point that this is especially true of the Nazi era films, which on first glance may seem innocuous, but as he points out, this is by Goebbels design. while there are many features that could be explored as possible links to the National Socialist ideology, I am partial to the aspect of authority, corruption, and order. The Nazi obsession with order and the role of the authority to create it are not lost in this film. Like Silberman, I believe that the original Kleist play, was less inherently national socialist rather than its ability to be easily appropriated as such. The subject of a corrupt authority that oppresses the Volk, who is then expelled from the community by a seemingly omniscient ruler can easily be put into the context of the Nazi ideal towards the intrinsic order of things. Is the ideology overt? Well, no. not necessarily. Does it allow for an easy propagation of Nazi ideas, yes, it probably does.

One Act, Many Interpretations.

There are several ways in which to look at this film as a potential Nazi film. I would start by looking at the motive for producing the film. As Silberman notes, both Ucicky and Jannings had strong party loyalties and had been previously involved with other pro-Nazi films. This fact in itself does not prove that the Broken Jug is a Nazi film, but in combination with further evidence, it is a compelling piece of the argument. It would also be worthwhile to explore the renewed popularity and interest in Kleist in Germany after the first World War. As Silberman states, “Critics seeking historical parallels to Germany’s hour of trial found in their idiosyncratic readings of Kleist’s tragedies a source for glorifying militaristic values and heroic resignation.”

The next way I would approach this film is by analyzing the way in which film is different from the original screenplay. Specifically, what is it about the film production that lends itself to the Nazi ideals. There is very little changed in the dialogue, yet the way the scenes are set changes the emphasis of the dialogue entirely. Even the way in which Adam’s face is filmed distracts the audience from the true meaning of the dialogue.

The Broken Jug: Entertainment or Propaganda

Silberman contends that no film can be free of an ideology, therefore, The Broken Jug should be interpreted as a Nazi Propaganda movie. Although I agree that the ideology of the filmmaker permeates all decisions made in the process of filming, I do not agree that all other possible
interpretations and representations of symbols and conflicts should be ignored. I do not believe that negating the film's role as an entertainment film during the Third Reich and reading all of the choices as conscious efforts at political propaganda is advantageous or exhaustive of the film's
roles and purposes. Yes, the film was made in Nazi Germany, under Nazi German rule; however, Silberman even admits that the film studios and the movies that were made were often under the control of the economy and what people wanted to see at the time. I do not believe that very much of The Broken Jug is overtly propagandistic; I do believe that symbols and exchanges can be viewed as Nazi propaganda, but not necessarily. I think where I differ with Silberman is that he seems to think that there is a right and a wrong way to analyze this film and that viewing the film as a National Socialist propaganda film is the correct way. I think the film, and for that matter the context the film was made in, is much more complicated than the difference between entertainment films and propaganda. Another point of interest is the fact that it really is fairly unimportant what we understand this movie to be by over analyzing and dissecting different choices made by the filmmaker; what is more important is what the audience who originally watched this movie, in the context it was made for, understood it to be. If the audience viewed it solely as an entertainment film, and were neither aware of, nor affected by the supposed propaganda in the film, then I would contend that despite any intentions to the contrary, the film works as an entertainment film -- nothing more.

October 6-8: The Broken Jug

Imagine you were writing a paper on the Broken Jug. How would you address its position as a Nazi film? Some helpful ways of thinking of this question (you do not need to use all of them or any of them!) What categories would you use to answer this question? How does the film associate with Nazi culture? How might you organize your argument?

If you use the Silberman article (on OAK) to help frame your argument, post your answer on the Readings blog. Otherwise, make use of the Films blog.

I'm not sure I get it...

Koepnick's argument seems to be that German cinema used the American west to represent what Germany was dealing with at the time, for example, in terms of the value of technological progression (with the cowboys over the Indians) of German at the time. While I can see the application of the settlement of the west to concerns about urbanization, I don't really see the use of the west as part of any sort of Nazi rederict "which promoted the vision of a new man in the service of the new political order. " I just see the idea of a new frontier being explored, and the conversion from wilderness to urban centers and states. Perhaps I'm missing something, but...I just don't get it.

Searching for a Nazi theme

I thought it was interesting how Koepnick addressed the acceptance of the American Western as an acceptance of modernism. Even though Germany was in very many aspects 'Anti-American', the collaboration of the Western theme with the Nazi ideals is somewhat ironic. I feel that to look The Emperor of California, 1936 & say that it displays concrete 'Nazi' themes would be to over analyze the product. Although there are subtle clues that working as one will lead to more success that individual efforts, the film is in essence more of a western that a Nazi tool for propaganda. I think the most important question asked by Koepnickf is "If genres such as the Western cross borders, and national film industries 

other than Hollywood's even decide to produce their own, the decisive question is not: is this really a Western?" Are the ideals found in Hollywood's westerns constricted to American actors or can they cross the international borders. I believe that this film has less Nazi themes than any film we have watched so far, and because we are used to the symbolic and metaphoric themes in movies before this, we tend to search and almost beg for the Nazi themes to appear where they really don't. 

Germany's Fantasy of the Old West

Focus on the Koepnick article Unsettling America: German Westerns and Modernity (on OAK). What is Koepnick's argument? Is it convincing? What do you agree or disagree with?

The piece by Koepnick that we read was very interesting in its examination of the way the German film industry used the Western film genre. Koepnick begins by pointing out, "Transculturated through the cinema, the imagery of the American frontier provided, especially during the 1920s and 1930s, symbolic resources for assessing Germany's abrupt step into the age of machines, urban traffic, democratic will formation, and mechanical reproduction." In other words, as Koepnick shows in this piece how the Western genre was used primarily as a way of navigating the harsh terrain of Germany's confrontation with modernism, which many believed was embodied in Americanization. As he states, although making Westerns was a way of constructing their own national cinema, Germany used "Western imagery...as a catalyst to negotiate the meaning of Americanization and urbanization, and thus to contest the value of technological progress, mass culture, and democratization." Going on, he remarks that "the American past, imagined or real, could return forever through technological mediation, a spectacle for mass audiences, a simulacrum open for an ample set of different political agendas and conflicting ideological inscriptions." In essence, as Koepnick demonstrates, the Western genre, in its ability to help navigate modernism, presented an opportunity, using a modern tool (the cinema) to present mass audiences with a particular political or ideological point of view.

If I am reading Koepnick correctly, he is showing that this genre presented a much different and simpler view of the world that was opposed to modernism. In doing so, audiences would be viewing a fantasy. Koepnick alludes to this when he writes that "Portraits of bucolic homeland settings and idealized images of the American West became focal catalysts of fantasy production, offering imaginary redemption from cultural discontent: they sketched places 'of epic action, heroic individualism and liberated wildnerness,' helping to release the disenfranchised urbanite from the iron cage of modern routinization." This being the case, by opening oneself up to this and partaking in the fantasy, the audience member would also be opening themselves up to any type of political or ideological agenda that was inherent in that fantasy. This is why Koepnick points out later in the piece that films like Trenker's and others in the Western genre could be used, particularly during the Nazi period, to promote "the vision of a new man in service of the new political order."

September 29-October 1

Reading: Focus on the Koepnick article Unsettling America: German Westerns and Modernity (on OAK). What is Koepnick's argument? Is it convincing? What do you agree or disagree with?

Top 10 Reasons Why Hitlerjunge Quex is Better Propaganda than Kuhle Wampe

10. Continuity Editing, enough said.
9. Younger cast.
8. Heini is much cuter than Fritz.
7. “Quex” also sounds cooler than “Comrade”
6. The death of the mother is always a good plot element (watch Disney’s Bambi if you don’t believe me)
5. In a country that is being forced to pay reparations to the rest of the continent, internationalism is probably not going to be very popular.
4. Big budgets > Small budgets
3. Fairs are great scenes for movies (watch James Dean in East of Eden).
2. Heinrich George
1. Heini and Ulla’s steamy onscreen kiss.

All joking aside, Hanz Steinhoff’s film Hitlerjunge Quex is an excellent example of how the Nazi party was able to gain the support of the German youth through various forms of propaganda. The film, unlike Kuhle Wampe, was made as a feature film and was meant to be entertaining. The plot of Hitlerjunge Quex is certainly more compelling, and the characters are easier to relate to. Propaganda like this film (and even more egregious forms too) were very successful with the younger generation of German citizens. As Alice Hamilton writes about in her article, the support of the youth was unquestionable. As she says, the Nazi government paid exacting attention to details that were very adolescent in character. Newspapers, for instance, gave more coverage to the upcoming Olympic games than to the upcoming Economic Conference, and instead of focusing on policies for helping unemployment, the Party cared more about reorganizing the sport clubs so as to debar Jews and Social Democrats. The Nazi party’s message to the youth was also much more positive (also more twisted, admittedly) than that offered by the Communists. “Hitler,” as Hamilton writes, “made each insignificant, poverty-stricken, jobless youth of the slums feel himself one of the great of the earth, since the youth was a German...". Additionally, although both the Nazis and the Communists published a great deal of propaganda, the Nazis were ultimately more effective because their message was simpler and more explicit. One barely needs to see more of the movie than the opening credit “Hitlerjunge Quex,” to know that the movie was pro-Nazi. Kuhle Wampe, on the other hand, was more subtle and was filmed so as to prompt the audience to ask questions pertinent to real issues. A nice idea, to be sure, but for the masses of discouraged German youth who knew little about politics or economics, all they wanted was a little hope and entertainment.

Alexis Tabak post on readings

A summary of Hamilton’s Key points
Hamilton’s article describes Hitler’s Nazi regime as one which all of its power lies in the youth. The focus on the youth was key to the regime’s success as the programs implemented a sense of belonging and self worth in a time when children felt lost, useless and unimportant. The propaganda strategies that the Nazis used to attract young men and women were so powerful that Hitler’s Germany was all about the promotion of the youth and the notion that the youth was the most important factor in order to carry on the messages of nationalism and Germany’s strong character to the following generations. The regime was all about promoting the minds of the youth and not about real world factors that were affecting the mass citizen in Germany. There was no mention of economic crises or that there was a significant growth in unemployment. The concentration of the youth turned Nazi Germany into a somewhat false reality, because the government was not focusing on political issues, the only cared about marginalizing and ostracizing the social democrats and the Jews. The youth after the world war was a some what lost generation, the children were somewhat useless yet had options of joining the communists or the Nazi’s. Hamilton’s news article explains that the Nazi’s had a smarter strategy of attracting the youth. The strategy was a simpler less international plan that that of the communists. The plan was to draw together the youth with the simple notion of a United Germany and a hatred of the Jews. The plan was simple, easy to follow and made the youth feel important with a sense of purpose in the community and as Germans. The Germans rid of voluntary programs in order to solidify the youth’s commitment to party ideals. Hamilton analyzes that the Germans felt that voluntary programs were “the germ of an undisciplined spirit”. The Nazi youth gave them a purpose and a sense of belonging, and made them feel passionate about doing something for the “good” of their country. What was particularly disturbing was the revolt against modern education. The focus was on physical strength and good military performance instead of academic excellence. The bind of the Hitler youth was that of a revolt against the development of the individual character. Hitler felt in order for the Nazi regime to be successful, the youth should value physical strength and German national unity above all. The restructuring of the education system focused on History and the dominance of Germany as a country and its power and prestige above all others. The Hitler Youth was key to the success of the continuing German regime to promote the ideals of German nationalism and to ensure that Hitler’s vision would outlive him for generations.

The Dangers of Oversimplification : Robert Gibson

Several times in her article, Alice Hamilton implicitly implies that a movement like the Nazi youth movement would not be possible in the United States. While I do not see an imminent danger of a totalitarian movement becoming popular on American soil, one should always guard against the idea that such a thing could never happen here. For someone (and I forget who at the moment) famously said that the tragedy of National Socialism was not the tragedy of Germany, but of Humankind.

Hamilton mentions that the posting of the twelve theses in an American university would be met with vigorous discussion, certainly not the muted acceptance characteristic of the German university of which she speaks. The sweeping implicit generalization that Germans are by nature accepting of racism is as potentially dangerous as any propaganda method in Hitlerjugend Quex as it encourages the reader not to think about his or her own potential for the acceptance of hate. The effect is for the reader to think: “those Germans are so easily duped” rather than “I wonder if, in a similarly politically hostile environment, American students would be able to make a courageous stand against widely accepted beliefs.”

A similar situation arises in Hamilton’s comment about book capturing and burning. Of course these things are “stupid, ugly and primitive,” but they do not look so to all Americans inherently. Yes it is true that such hostility to learning is not traditional in the United States, but it should be noted that while Hamilton was writing, the US Post Office was routinely seizing copies of James Joyce’s Ulysees because it was deemed ‘obscene’. Thus while her argument about youths taking power in Germany may be valid, Hamilton’s ill-advised writings about American superiority are not that different from certain elements of Nazi propaganda, since they discourage critical thought.

Hamilton's Americentrism

While the idea of a first hand account of the assumption of Nazi power of the youth is compelling, the most interesting aspect to the Hamilton article lies in the filter through which she views it. The general tenor of the article comes from a persepctive of seemingly omnisceint understanding of the failings of the German nation, failings which would never occur in the United States. Hamilton presents the German youth as prey for the fodder of the Nazi government; eliciting compassion from readers through a portrayal of youth as having no understanding of the connection "between work and food". The universality of Hamilton's assumptions serve only to veil the americentristic ideas inherent to her worldview. The atrocities are clear to all who read, but she colors them all with the sentiment that no American would fall prey to the rouse, she states, "All this seemed simply stupid and ugly and primitive to an American". While I would like to see Hamilton's worldview as anachronistic and indicative of a by gone era, the sad truth is that she is but an echo of the same sentiments gratuitously espoused by the American people today. The ever present, ever omniscient, American voice of freedom.

the audience is the thing.

Alice Hamilton makes note of the overwhelming powerlessness felt by much of the youth after World War I, and cites the lack of direction as the main reason that the youth were so susceptible to the propagandistic endeavors of both the Communists and the Nazis. Both of the factions appealed to these "insignificant, poverty-stricken, jobless youth of the slums" by inviting them to be part of a larger, grander design.
Kuhle Wampe and Hitlerjunge Quex are these groups' respective invitations, in a sense. With this in mind, when Hamilton says that Hitler's propaganda was "narrower and more concrete," I cannot help but to agree. Hitler's notion of the audience that he was seducing was more developed than the Communists'. This is evidenced by the sensational but easy to follow narrative of Quex, especially when compared to the more intellectual, and perhaps baffling series of events in Kuhle Wampe. Kuhle Wampe was on the edge- an avant-garde piece of cinematic artistry, but as is often true of the avant-garde, it was relatively inaccessible to the average person. That is to say that the propaganda of Hitler was more successful because it used modes that weren't new- Nazi propaganda uses the already established vocabulary to its own end, instead of inventing new modes, like the Communists. What good is propaganda if it is not accessible by the masses?

The surpising attitude of Germany's youth in 1933

Hamilton's article begins to shed some light upon why the youth of Germany were so susceptible to Hitler's propaganda, although her description of Hitler youths' enthusiasm is still extremely surprising from this 21st century American perspective - much more in-depth study and contemplation would be required to truly get any grasp on the motivations of Nazi youth. Without any prior information about Nazi Germany, I would have expected the young people to be very resistant to Hitler; and even with some background knowledge, I found their fervent devotion to Hitler's campaign shocking. In my experience, young people are generally the ones questioning authority, fighting for "progressive" ideals (i.e. anti-racism, anti-authoritarianism), giving the finger to censorship, rejecting harsh discipline, etc., at least far more so than their grandparents. The German youth, however, apparently had the exact opposite mentality: they were the ones burning books, turning out professors for expressing dissenting opinions, advocating that government programs be made mandatory, wanting more discipline, discriminating against Jews. This entire picture of the young people of a society seems completely counter-intuitive and topsy-turvy to me.

The article gave some explanation for this bizarre phenomenon by commenting on the German youths' sense of purposelessness and their extremely impoverished conditions. American youth of the 21st century, by and large, come from a very different set of circumstances - starvation is not seen as a norm, for example - and perhaps that is one underlying reason for these diverging tendencies between these two groups of young people. There are also some similarities: both groups of young people seem more likely to advocate idealistically for change than their older counterparts, and perhaps the fact that they advocate for two very different types of society is a result of the immediate social circumstances. That is to say, youth often like to rebel against the status quo, but the direction of their rebellion can be shaped - this challenge of tradition is not always progressive, as seems to be the dominant case here. Another similarity seems to be the overwhelming need in both the Nazi youth and 21st century American youth to belong. This need was obviously exploited by the Nazi party in Germany, whereas currently American youth have the less sinister outlets of informal social cliques.

The influence of the Nazis seems all the more frightening to me because it reached even and especially the young people, who seem like they should be the ones naturally questioning authority. I find the need for more enlightenment on what causes led to that mindset, how easily that occurs, and whether the youth of the 21st century are really so far removed from this attitude or if that is just an illusion.

Persuasive Propaganda

Alice Hamilton presents an interesting comment in her article which emphasized what we have witnessed the past few weeks with Hitler Youth Quex and Kuhle Wampe. She wrote, "Both [Communists and Nazis] appealed to hatred, both held out an ideal of a changed Germany, but Hitler's propaganda was cleverer than the Communists', because his program [was] narrower, more concrete" (1). Hitler Youth Quex and Kuhle Wampe were great depictions of this idea. In Hitler Youth Quex, you left the movie humming the Nazi Youth song, understanding what needed to be done, and in many ways feeling for Heini after witnessing the destruction that was brought on to him by the Communists. However in Kuhle Wampe, I left the theater feeling extremely confused - not only about the plot but about what I was supposed to feel. The "wonderful" thing about Hitler Youth Quex was that you didn't have to think about what you were supposed to feel, you just felt it. Hitler's propaganda was so precise and persuasive that you didn't have to think about where you should align yourself and who you should support. I think this is why Hitler Youth Quex resonated with our class and with the youth during that time period and why Kuhle Wampe left us feeling uncertain and unsure of where to go next.

Why the Nazis where more successful than the Communists

Alice Hamilton shows in the article „The Youth Are the Strength of Hitler” the situation of the youth in postwar Germany. Most of them had never been working and did not even know “the connection between work and food”. They were hopeless, having no perspective for the future. Both, the Nazis and the Communists tried to get these youth to either side by offering ways to become active. But the propaganda the Nazis used to attract people was much more effective. Not only was Hitler’s program more attractive (he declared the Germans superior to any other people and therewith created a strong national feeling whereas the Communists were in favor of internationalism in which everybody values the same), but also the way the Nazis made propaganda was much better.
Comparing “Hitlerjunge Quex” and “Kuhle Wampa” this circumstance becomes obvious. Kuhle Wampa is indeed propaganda for the Communists but the propaganda is so sub textual that many “simple” people probably didn’t even understand it. The message is conveyed in a very artistic way and leaves a lot of room for interpretation. The plot actually is very short and simple but nevertheless confusing and it is not really a pleasure to watch the movie, at least for the average man of that time. In contrast in “Hitlerjunge Quex” the propaganda is very obvious. The audience knows exactly that the Nazis are the “good” and the Communists the “bad”. The plot is very clear and it is a pleasure for everyone to watch it. These two movies show why the Nazi propaganda was much more successful: because it was simpler and more transparent and therewith more accessible to the normal man.